|
|
Post by waltercrunk on Sept 20, 2013 17:59:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by artcubed on Sept 20, 2013 22:48:12 GMT -8
An interesting article, thanks for posting. It's been amazing to watch over the past six months and whether the price increase has been driven by basic economics or market manipulation, I'll be fascinated to see what happens from here. Prices no longer seem ridiculous given the artist has recently signed for DZ and given the buzz that surrounds the artist, and I suspect one days today's crazy prices will appear very reasonable. I only wish I owned 50 canvasses by him as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by ricosg11 on Sept 21, 2013 3:59:12 GMT -8
nothing is a guarantee. Not even Zwirner. These price increases are so far from natural or justified. Good luck to him though. Grab it while you can.
|
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Sept 21, 2013 5:25:28 GMT -8
And then you hear that Zwirner is selling his work at the Chicago fair for around $30k or so and wish you too were one of his A list clients.
|
|
|
|
Post by artladval on Sept 22, 2013 13:54:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Sept 22, 2013 14:01:41 GMT -8
Hmmm. The first time I read that article I swear it said 30k range. Either I misread or it was edited later on. Thanks for catching.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexart on Sept 23, 2013 10:41:03 GMT -8
Or maybe he correctly read the price..and then the sale was advertised @ 120$ ?
The gap is big here, but that's a common dealer practice(
|
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Sept 23, 2013 20:41:03 GMT -8
I'd rather have a Joe Bradley. Too many GMO art careers. Organic growth is the only real way. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by wenters on Sept 25, 2013 1:11:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by dotdot on Sept 25, 2013 2:51:45 GMT -8
yeah i saw that.. but didn't see (mentioned) who he was bidding against. might have been kate winslet (I'll get my sunglasses coat ..) |
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Sept 25, 2013 10:35:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rosenblumari on Sept 25, 2013 13:26:58 GMT -8
More Murillo - Sothebys and Christies have Murillos in their upcoming Evening sales next month in London. The word "champagne" has made the Murillo dictionary.  |
|
|
|
Post by alexart on Sept 25, 2013 13:55:47 GMT -8
Today sale was however less than 200k$
So probably a real....i guess the 400k$+ are more marks up!
huge difference though!
|
|
|
|
Post by artladval on Sept 25, 2013 16:26:12 GMT -8
yeah i saw that.. but didn't see (mentioned) who he was bidding against. might have been kate winslet (I'll get my sunglasses coat ..) Leonardo DiCaprio did not buy that Murillo. If he wanted a piece, he could just ask Zwirner to sell him one. DiCaprio was simply at the same auction that the Murillo was sold: pagesix.com/2013/09/23/dicaprio-is-hungry-for-art/ |
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Sept 26, 2013 0:58:26 GMT -8
If anyone has been to (or knows about) the Murillo show at South London Gallery and can explain what is good or interesting about the work, I'd be glad to hear it. I was there yesterday and found myself left completely cold and feeling that I see more interesting work at just about every degree show. But I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about...
|
|
|
|
Post by WillNyc on Sept 26, 2013 6:44:29 GMT -8
Woah sold at 160k hammered price.
|
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Sept 27, 2013 7:59:36 GMT -8
|
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Sept 27, 2013 11:42:22 GMT -8
Thanks for that -- interesting to see what people who might know something about art (i.e. not me) think about this show. This amused me though:
"...qualitative judgments are harder to ascertain; it becomes not so much a question of how good an artist Murillo is, because here, Murillo’s art just is."
Right on. Nobody knows if it's any good.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Oct 17, 2013 6:08:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by wimbledongreen on Oct 21, 2013 15:14:29 GMT -8
The Oscar Murillo ascent is incredible and unbelievable. Since art world transactions are not transparent there's no way to know how it happened exactly, but I would love to see a story written about how this transpires. In a Bloomberg article dated September 18, 2013 it says "Two years ago, artist Oscar Murillo, now 27, cleaned offices to put himself through art school. His paintings sold for less than $3,000." At the Christie’s Postwar and Contemporary day sale summer 2013 a painting sold for $391,475.
Is the artwork THAT good/important? In just two years was there a simultaneous recognition by dealers, collectors, critics, and institutions that this guy truly is the "next Basquiat"? Or does a secret cabal of dealers, collectors, critics and institutions decide "let's make this artist the next Basquiat so we can make money!" Seeing the rise in prices makes me cringe a little because to me it feels unnatural and hints that some of what is considered important art is only there because of financial interests. Who is writing the art history books? It's very strange to me how some artists like Murillo and Tauba Auerbach can have prices escalate so quickly. In the case of Auerbach I've ready the Mugrabi's are bidding up the works at auction. Am I too cynical if I think that when artists prices rise so quickly like this it's only because a certain group of people are looking to make money? I don't know how an artist can be considered so important in such a short amount of time. There's no time for reflection or context and to see how it all pans out in the long run. Even Andy Warhol did not have such price increases in such a short time frame and he's one of the most important artists of the 20th century.
I'm going to end up too jaded/cynical/suspicious with so many "hot" artists and incredible price leaps. I'm going to question why is such and such website/critic talking about artist X? Do they know collector Y and dealer Z? Is the artist now "in play". This is an unorganized post/thought, but there's so much buzz about Murillo it's hard to get away from. With so much art/money talk is the art world in a "juicing" period and eventually a hundred years from now people won't even know who Murillo is?
|
|
|
|
Post by neoncrayon on Oct 22, 2013 9:23:39 GMT -8
I would love to see buyers hanging these proudly in their homes
|
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Oct 22, 2013 11:04:11 GMT -8
Can anyone shed any light on what happened at the Murillo "prize draw" this weekend?
Here's what I know and have heard. As part of the SLG show, he was selling screen prints daubed with a bit of paint (by his family, apparently), which served as lottery tickets. On Frieze weekend (when else?) the sales closed and a prize draw was to be made. I have heard rumours that the draw was done very shabbily, with some numbers called out that belonged to people who were not there and who were then passed over, and finally the top prize won by Murillo's gallerist... but I don't know for sure.
Sounds shady, or perhaps a deliberate comment on the use of lotteries to generate revenue from the naive and foolish, which I think was part of the idea of the show in the first place. Does anyone know more, and what do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Oct 22, 2013 11:20:02 GMT -8
Can anyone shed any light on what happened at the Murillo "prize draw" this weekend? Here's what I know and have heard. As part of the SLG show, he was selling screen prints daubed with a bit of paint (by his family, apparently), which served as lottery tickets. On Frieze weekend (when else?) the sales closed and a prize draw was to be made. I have heard rumours that the draw was done very shabbily, with some numbers called out that belonged to people who were not there and who were then passed over, and finally the top prize won by Murillo's gallerist... but I don't know for sure. Sounds shady, or perhaps a deliberate comment on the use of lotteries to generate revenue from the naive and foolish, which I think was part of the idea of the show in the first place. Does anyone know more, and what do you think? wow, i really hope that didn't actually happen. would love to hear what others have experienced regarding this whole thing. what news has been projected to those who bought the tickets? |
|
|
|
Post by artladval on Oct 22, 2013 11:25:16 GMT -8
Sounds shady, or perhaps a deliberate comment on the use of lotteries to generate revenue from the naive and foolish, which I think was part of the idea of the show in the first place. Kinda like the idea with this? entertainment.time.com/2013/10/18/artist-christo-faces-opposition-to-colorado-project/#ixzz2iNAY0ESf"Installation artist Christo has said opposition to his planned “Over the River” project on the Arkansas River in Colorado is part of the art, and he welcomes debate over what is appropriate for his displays." |
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Oct 22, 2013 11:45:15 GMT -8
|
|
